The CL Gerling and JM Gilliss Correspondence (1847–1856)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JHA0010.1177/0021828620919536Journal for the History of AstronomySanhueza-Cerda and Valderrama 919536research-article2020 Article JHA Journal for the History of Astronomy 2020, Vol. 51(2) 187 –208 Finding a Point of Observation © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: in the Global South: The sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0021828620919536DOI: 10.1177/0021828620919536 C. L. Gerling and J.M. Gilliss journals.sagepub.com/home/jha Correspondence (1847–1856) Carlos Sanhueza-Cerda Universidad de Chile, Chile Lorena B. Valderrama University Alberto Hurtado, Chile Abstract Historians of science have amply demonstrated the transnational character of science; however, they have not sufficiently attended to how several scientific projects were coordinated as part of global initiatives. Our research – based on the unpublished, written correspondence between Christian Ludwig Gerling in Germany and James M. Gilliss in the United States, from 1847 to 1856 – examines the issues that were being discussed in the search for an observation point in Chile that could be linked to the various astronomical research projects happening in the global north. This article shows that the building of this network had to navigate communicational and language barriers, financial uncertainty, lack of adequate scientific instruments, and the influence of intermediaries. In fact, the intermediaries involved affected the formulation of questions and objectives, as well as the choice of methods and instruments to be used (such as Alexander von Humboldt and Friedrich Gauss), and directly impacted on how these things were brought to bear (for example, instrument manufacturers, diplomats, and translators). Keywords Astronomy in the nineteenth century, Christian Ludwig Gerling, James M. Gilliss, Chile, astronomical networks Corresponding author: Carlos Sanhueza-Cerda, Department of History, Universidad de Chile, Ignacio Carrera, 1025 Santiago, Chile. Email: [email protected] 188 Journal for the History of Astronomy 51(2) Introduction The history of science has been discussing the global dimension since the end of the twentieth century. Accordingly, studies have been conducted on the multiple facets of exchanges between Europe and the rest of the world, regarding the representation of nature,1 trade and art,2 and the development of the Spanish, Portuguese, and British empires.3 Attention has recently been paid to the role of knowledge in the process of globalization,4 as well as to intermediaries that have acted as liaisons between the local and the global.5 In 2010, the journal Isis dedicated a special issue to the global histories of science, attending “to the connections and disconnections of science on the global stage.”6 For those studying the history of science, its global dimension is quite evident. Yet the extent to which science, as an activity, constitutes an international phenomenon has not yet been adequately addressed. How were these global networks of exchange formed? What implications did this have? What dynamics shaped this process? Lissa Roberts, who has discussed some of these issues, calls for greater integration in the history of science, in which science is seen as a “mutually constructive element of global history.”7 This is because science, according to Roberts, is “a historical phenom- enon, one that is simultaneously a constructive element and a product of more general history on a global scale.”8 In this sense, there is a need for dialogue among historians of science and other historians interested in broad developments, integrations, and interac- tions around the globe. Turchetti, Herran, and Boudia have inquired as to whether sci- ence can actually be transnational. Although the question may seem trivial, it proves quite relevant when considering that it has been virtually absent from debates on trans- national, world and new global history, as well as on the history of science. These authors believe that the history of science can open “new spaces of collaboration which could propel the discipline beyond its current reach,” which is why they call for there to be debate on the “transnational history of sciences.”9 In effect, the issue is not whether science can constitute a global or translational activ- ity,10 but rather on what scale and in what conditions this dimension can be understood. Sujit Sivasundaram has shed light on the complex nature of writing about the history of science from a global perspective.11 Again Roberts, in her comments on the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s “Chemistry and Global History” conference in 2014, shared her thoughts on how to understand global history, stating that “. it is preferable to speak of global histories, especially since this allows for the coexistence (whether parallel, col- laborative, or competitive) of multiple, spatio-temporal regimes, imaginaries, expecta- tions, and so forth.” Furthermore, Roberts affirms that some prefer to consider the notion of global “as referring to a method or approach rather than a geographical frame. Speaking of ‘global histories’ in this sense affords exploration of productive tensions within and between levels of scale (local/regional/national/world), in dialogue with other tensions.” In other words, speaking of global histories “helps us to recognize material agency as ‘essentially’ local.”12 Therefore, this perspective allows for the linking of dif- ferent scales without necessarily having to favour one over the other. One fundamental element for understanding global exchanges is the correspondence between different actors that took part in these networks. It has been argued that, since the scientific revolution, collaboration, and the exchange of information (especially in Sanhueza-Cerda and Valderrama 189 terms of observations and experiments) arose through the letters scientists sent each other. The analysis of these documents allows us to study, from the wings, the episte- mologies at play during observations, the relationship between communication and observation and discussions on the effects of the scientific revolution.13 In one sense, these letters by scientists and academics include some aspects that allowed them to rein- force their authority, whether in terms of the handling of instruments or in making the best observations possible. In another sense, this communication created what has been called a “social environment” that allowed for global scientific projects. The correspond- ence between scientists allowed them to find sponsors, consolidate friendships, and establish reliable channels of communication.14 In the case of astronomy, it has been mentioned that the first modern astronomers whose ability to find data on the phenomena they studied largely depended on their colleagues. Through these exchanges, they wove “webs of learned correspondence in which details of instrumentation, observational protocols, data in various forms, and procedures for their reduction were highly prized matters of both jealous and generous exchange.”15 These com- munications were a mechanism for the dissemination of news on heavenly phenomena over long distances “for discussion on their nature.”16 This did not strictly deal with information on research that was underway. In effect, as will be seen in this case study, the correspond- ence between astronomers identified an “uncertainness associated with the other compo- nents of the discipline: the quality of the instrument used (or not used) to record the observation, the optical interpretation of the phenomena observed,” as well as including discussions on the mathematical techniques used to deduce positions or the physical princi- ples involved.17 Many of the discussions and debates that occurred through this correspond- ence not only involved the authors or readers of these letters, but also other actors (such as telescope manufacturers) who were mentioned within. At the same time, as shall be seen later on, the letters themselves were cited in scientific articles and science journalism. Another important point of interest in the relationship between science and a glo- balized world has to do with the scientific projects that, in order to successfully meet their goals, had to coordinate an array of different tasks. These ranged from calibrating and producing the instruments needed to carry out measurements and observations, to the transporting of people and economic resources to make the research possible. To that end, scholarship has been produced on the study of the Earth’s magnetic field during the 1830s – a period also known as the “magnetic crusade,”18 – the late nineteenth-century French effort to map the night sky from different parts of the globe in what was called the Carte du ciel.19 The case of the Astronomical Expedition to the Southern Hemisphere is one example of these nineteenth century global projects. Nineteenth century astronomy as a global project: the case of the astronomical expedition to the Southern Hemisphere Astronomy in the nineteenth century constitutes an ideal setting for the analysis of global projects, insofar as they required observations to be made across the planet for their findings to be considered valid. In effect, astronomy, at the time, was facing the 190 Journal for the History of Astronomy 51(2) challenge of coordinating different points of observation in the aim of determining the distance between stars and building a system of measurement that would make it pos- sible to locate the positions, distances, and orbits of celestial